Quotes from Septuagint - what does that really mean?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Elzee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Elzee

Guest
I have heard that of the 365 or so references that the NT makes to the OT, that about 300 of these are from the Septuagint. I know what the Septuagint is (I think - the greek translation of the OT that was used by the apostles and it is our Catholic OT), but my question is, what does this claim really mean?

I don’t think it means that 300 of those references are from the 7 books that the Protestants don’t have, so if that is the case, wouldn’t those 300 quotes just be from the same books we both use, and if so, how can it be said that they are from the ‘Septuagint’? How can we know they’re from the Septuagint version and not the OT books used by Protestants since we have those in common?
 
Elzee said:
I have heard that of the 365 or so references that the NT makes to the OT, that about 300 of these are from the Septuagint. I know what the Septuagint is (I think - the greek translation of the OT that was used by the apostles and it is our Catholic OT), but my question is, what does this claim really mean?

I don’t think it means that 300 of those references are from the 7 books that the Protestants don’t have, so if that is the case, wouldn’t those 300 quotes just be from the same books we both use, and if so, how can it be said that they are from the ‘Septuagint’? How can we know they’re from the Septuagint version and not the OT books used by Protestants since we have those in common?
Click to expand...
Check this website out its written by a Protestant who done some research on the Septuagint.

us.geocities.com/r_grant_jones/Rick/Septuagint/splist1.htm

Also check this one.

scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html

scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html
 
It means that the Apostles and Christ and the early Church, as well as the Jews accepted the Septuagint. After all, the Septuagint was a translation done by Jews for their own use about a 100 or so years before Christ. And it included the same books which have always been included by the Church in the Catholic bible, except for the New Testament, which was written later.
 
Elzee said:
I have heard that of the 365 or so references that the NT makes to the OT, that about 300 of these are from the Septuagint. I know what the Septuagint is (I think - the greek translation of the OT that was used by the apostles and it is our Catholic OT), but my question is, what does this claim really mean?

I don’t think it means that 300 of those references are from the 7 books that the Protestants don’t have, so if that is the case, wouldn’t those 300 quotes just be from the same books we both use, and if so, how can it be said that they are from the ‘Septuagint’? How can we know they’re from the Septuagint version and not the OT books used by Protestants since we have those in common?
Click to expand...
The Septuagent includes all the books in the Catholic Bible (Old Testament.)

The significance of so many quotes from the Septuagent is that it shows the Septuagent was the most widely-used version of the Jewish Scriptures in the time of Christ (a fact we know from other sources as well.)

The early Church used the Septuagent, and this shows the legitimacy of the Catholic Bible over the abbreviated Protestant version.
 
vern_humphrey said:
The Septuagent includes all the books in the Catholic Bible (Old Testament.)

The significance of so many quotes from the Septuagent is that it shows the Septuagent was the most widely-used version of the Jewish Scriptures in the time of Christ (a fact we know from other sources as well.)

The early Church used the Septuagent, and this shows the legitimacy of the Catholic Bible over the abbreviated Protestant version.
Click to expand...
But how do we know they are from the Septuagent? Let me explain. I have a dvd by Fr. Pacwa where he says only 2-3 referencs/quotes form the NT are from the 7 books we have that the Protestants don’t, but he says 300 quotes are from the Septuagent. If that is the case, why do we say those quotes are from the Septuagent as opposed to saying they are from the books we have in commone with the Protestant bible. If they are from the common books, then it doesn’t make sense to me why we say they are from the Septuagent (unless they way they are quoted in the NT Greek shows they are from OT Greek and not the Hebrew version of the OT?) I’m so confused.
 
Elzee said:
But how do we know they are from the Septuagent? Let me explain. I have a dvd by Fr. Pacwa where he says only 2-3 referencs/quotes form the NT are from the 7 books we have that the Protestants don’t, but he says 300 quotes are from the Septuagent. If that is the case, why do we say those quotes are from the Septuagent as opposed to saying they are from the books we have in commone with the Protestant bible. If they are from the common books, then it doesn’t make sense to me why we say they are from the Septuagent (unless they way they are quoted in the NT Greek shows they are from OT Greek and not the Hebrew version of the OT?) I’m so confused.
Click to expand...
Did you bother to look at the links which connects NT and Septuagint OT text?
 
Elzee said:
But how do we know they are from the Septuagent? Let me explain. I have a dvd by Fr. Pacwa where he says only 2-3 referencs/quotes form the NT are from the 7 books we have that the Protestants don’t, but he says 300 quotes are from the Septuagent. If that is the case, why do we say those quotes are from the Septuagent as opposed to saying they are from the books we have in commone with the Protestant bible. If they are from the common books, then it doesn’t make sense to me why we say they are from the Septuagent (unless they way they are quoted in the NT Greek shows they are from OT Greek and not the Hebrew version of the OT?) I’m so confused.
Click to expand...
The Septuagent is the whole Old Testament in Greek. The fact that Jesus and the Apostles used it shows us they used the whole Old Testament. The fact that there are no quotes from this or that book is irrelevant – they had and used the Sepauagent, which is the whole Old Testament, as we have it.
 
vern_humphrey said:
The Septuagent is the whole Old Testament in Greek. The fact that Jesus and the Apostles used it shows us they used the whole Old Testament. The fact that there are no quotes from this or that book is irrelevant – they had and used the Sepauagent, which is the whole Old Testament, as we have it.
Click to expand...
They were use for reference but never quoted.

The link I show proves this.
 
Mannyfit75 said:
Did you bother to look at the links which connects NT and Septuagint OT text?
Click to expand...
Yes and I was still confused.

Okay, let me try again. Thank you for your patience. I really need to understandt his. In the link you provided, when it says “Hebrew” is this what it would have said if they had been quoting the 'Protestant OT" for lack of a better word, instead of the Greek translation of that (which is the Septuagent). ** In other words, was the wording slightly different in the Septuagint because it was in Greek (as opposed to Hebrew) even though the references are from the books they had in common (Isaiah, Pslams, etc.), and THAT’S how we know they are from the Septuagent instead of the Hebrew? Did I finally get it???!**
 
Elzee said:
I have heard that of the 365 or so references that the NT makes to the OT, that about 300 of these are from the Septuagint. I know what the Septuagint is (I think - the greek translation of the OT that was used by the apostles and it is our Catholic OT), but my question is, what does this claim really mean?

I don’t think it means that 300 of those references are from the 7 books that the Protestants don’t have, so if that is the case, wouldn’t those 300 quotes just be from the same books we both use, and if so, how can it be said that they are from the ‘Septuagint’? How can we know they’re from the Septuagint version and not the OT books used by Protestants since we have those in common?
Click to expand...
The NT quotes the OT about 350 times, and of those,about 300 are from the Septuagint, including about 150 from the 7 books.

The thing is, the Septuagint was prepared by Jews before the time of Christ. It included all the OT books that the Catholic Church uses. It was accepted by the Jews, by the Apostles, and used by the Church. It’s pretty much what St. Paul meant when he referred to “scripture.” (As in, “all scripture is useful. . .”)
 
Elzee said:
But how do we know they are from the Septuagent?
Click to expand...
Apparently the wording of the texts in the Greek Septuagint is sufficiently different from the wording in the Hebrew text that they can be distinguished.
 
Elzee said:
Yes and I was still confused.

Okay, let me try again. Thank you for your patience. I really need to understandt his. In the link you provided, when it says “Hebrew” is this what it would have said if they had been quoting the 'Protestant OT" for lack of a better word, instead of the Greek translation of that (which is the Septuagent). ** In other words, was the wording slightly different in the Septuagint because it was in Greek (as opposed to Hebrew) even though the references are from the books they had in common (Isaiah, Pslams, etc.), and THAT’S how we know they are from the Septuagent instead of the Hebrew? Did I finally get it???!**
Click to expand...
Take a look for example at Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:13 in the RSV, which translates the OT directly from the Hebrew and the NT from the Greek. In the RSV, they directly translate the Hebrew word present there, which simply means “young woman” or “maiden”; it does not specifically mean “virgin.” But in Matthew 1:23 it quotes from the Septuagint, which contains the precise Greek word for “virgin”, hence, you will see a difference.

The Good News Bible has an appendix listing LXX quotations at the back. If you look at those quotes and compare them against the OT text, there are differences.
 
Mannyfit75 said:
They were use for reference but never quoted.

The link I show proves this.
Click to expand...
Proves what?

Most of the books of the Old Testament are quoted in the Bible in various places. And the overwhelming majority of quotes come from the Septuagent. This simply confirms the Septuagent was the most widely-used version in Christ’s time – even in Judea – something we know from many other sources.
 
Elzee said:
In other words, was the wording slightly different in the Septuagint because it was in Greek (as opposed to Hebrew) even though the references are from the books they had in common (Isaiah, Pslams, etc.), and THAT’S how we know they are from the Septuagent instead of the Hebrew? Did I finally get it???!
Click to expand...
YES!
Mannyfit75 said:
Check this website out its written by a Protestant who done some research on the Septuagint.

us.geocities.com/r_grant_jones/Rick/Septuagint/splist1.htm
Click to expand...
Wow! That site’s a goldmine of information!
 
vern_humphrey said:
Proves what?

Most of the books of the Old Testament are quoted in the Bible in various places. And the overwhelming majority of quotes come from the Septuagent. This simply confirms the Septuagent was the most widely-used version in Christ’s time – even in Judea – something we know from many other sources.
Click to expand...
Prove that the Septuagint is used 3/4 of the time in the NT.
 
Elzee said:
But how do we know they are from the Septuagent? Let me explain. I have a dvd by Fr. Pacwa where he says only 2-3 referencs/quotes form the NT are from the 7 books we have that the Protestants don’t, but he says 300 quotes are from the Septuagent. If that is the case, why do we say those quotes are from the Septuagent as opposed to saying they are from the books we have in commone with the Protestant bible. If they are from the common books, then it doesn’t make sense to me why we say they are from the Septuagent (unless they way they are quoted in the NT Greek shows they are from OT Greek and not the Hebrew version of the OT?)
Click to expand...
Yes, that’s what it means.

It’s like saying: “Pastor Billy Bob quotedthe Bible 30 times in his sermon, and 25 of those quotations were from the KJV.” That would tell you something about the pastor’s theological stance and affiliation (that he was conservative enough to prefer the KJV, but not a hardline KJV-onlyist, for instance).

Just as you can compare an English quotation from the Bible to various English translations to see which one is being used, so you can compare the Greek NT to the LXX (Septuagint) to see if that is being used, as opposed to a different translation or a direct quotation/paraphrase of the Hebrew.

It’s not that simple, though. For one thing, what we call the LXX actually had a number of different readings. For another, the NT writers often treated the source material quite freely, adding in words, etc. Finally, it’s not as if whenever someone quotes the LXX translation they were reading from a bound, printed edition with LXX on the cover and containing all the books currently printed in an LXX edition. So you can’t prove that just because they quoted the translation therefore they used all the books that current editions of the LXX have. Our “Septuagint” has the “deuterocanonical” books because early Christians used them, not necessarily vice versa.

Edwin
 
I like to compare the following verses from Isaiah 7:14

Masoretic Text (Hebrew Text)
Isaiah 7:14

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Matthew 1:23

Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.

Septuagint (Greek)
Isaiah 7:14

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; behold, a virgin shall conceive in the womb, and shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Emmanuel.

Comments:
The RSV translates Isaiah 7.14 as follows, “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” The Hebrew word here is almah, which means a young woman. Whether ‘almah’ necessarily implied virginity has long been a point of controversy.
Click to expand...
The Septuagint reading given above contains a different verb (lhyetai) than the New Testament (exei). Note that Brenton’s Septuagint relies on Codex Vaticanus. If Codex Alexandrinus is used instead, the New Testament and the Septuagint agree on this point.
Click to expand...
The agreement between the New Testament and the Septuagint in this passage is even greater when New Testament variants are considered. Some New Testament witnesses read “you shall call his name,” as in the Septuagint: Codex D, a few Greek and some Bohairic manuscripts, Origen and Eusebius.
Click to expand...
us.geocities.com/r_grant_jones/Rick/Septuagint/spIs7-14.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top